Mobile DNA transposition in somatic cells

It had been long assumed that almost all insertions of mobile DNA elements occurred during germ-cell development rather than in somatic-cell development, but solid evidence for transposition in somatic cells is now accumulating. To add to this evidence, a recent paper in Mobile DNA reports the somatic transposition of a site-specific retrotransposon, R2, into its insertion site in 28S ribosomal DNA in Drosophila embryos

L1TD1 Is a Marker for Undifferentiated Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Human embryonic stem cells (hESC) are stem cells capable of differentiating into cells representative of the three primary embryonic germ layers. There has been considerable interest in understanding the mechanisms regulating stem cell pluripotency, which will ultimately lead to development of more efficient methods to derive and culture hESC. In particular, Oct4, Sox2 and Nanog are transcription factors known to be important in maintenance of hESC. However, many of the downstream targets of these transcription factors are not well characterized. Furthermore, it remains unknown whether additional novel stem cell factors are involved in the establishment and maintenance of the stem cell state.Here we show that a novel gene, L1TD1 (also known as FLJ10884 or ECAT11), is abundantly expressed in undifferentiated hESC. Differentiation of hESC via embryoid body (EB) formation or BMP4 treatment results in the rapid down-regulation of L1TD1 expression. Furthermore, populations of undifferentiated and differentiated hESC were sorted using the stem cell markers SSEA4 and TRA160. Our results show that L1TD1 is enriched in the SSEA4-positive or TRA160-positive population of hESC. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation we found enriched association of Nanog to the predicted promoter region of L1TD1. Furthermore, siRNA-mediated knockdown of Nanog in hESC also resulted in downregulation of L1TD1 expression. Finally, using luciferase reporter assay we demonstrated that Nanog can activate the L1TD1 upstream promoter region. Altogether, these results provide evidence that L1TD1 is a downstream target of Nanog.Taken together, our results suggest that L1TD1 is a downstream target of Nanog and represents a useful marker for identifying undifferentiated hESC

Characterization of LINE-1 Ribonucleoprotein Particles

The average human genome contains a small cohort of active L1 retrotransposons that encode two proteins (ORF1p and ORF2p) required for their mobility (i.e., retrotransposition). Prior studies demonstrated that human ORF1p, L1 RNA, and an ORF2p-encoded reverse transcriptase activity are present in ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes. However, the inability to physically detect ORF2p from engineered human L1 constructs has remained a technical challenge in the field. Here, we have employed an epitope/RNA tagging strategy with engineered human L1 retrotransposons to identify ORF1p, ORF2p, and L1 RNA in a RNP complex. We next used this system to assess how mutations in ORF1p and/or ORF2p impact RNP formation. Importantly, we demonstrate that mutations in the coiled-coil domain and RNA recognition motif of ORF1p, as well as the cysteine-rich domain of ORF2p, reduce the levels of ORF1p and/or ORF2p in L1 RNPs. Finally, we used this tagging strategy to localize the L1–encoded proteins and L1 RNA to cytoplasmic foci that often were associated with stress granules. Thus, we conclude that a precise interplay among ORF1p, ORF2p, and L1 RNA is critical for L1 RNP assembly, function, and L1 retrotransposition

Many LINE1 elements contribute to the transcriptome of human somatic cells

Over 600 LINE 1 elements are shown to be transcribed in humans; 400 of these are full-length elements in the reference genome

Taming of the shrewd: novel eukaryotic genes from RNA viruses

Genomes of several yeast species contain integrated DNA copies of complete genomes or individual genes of non-retroviral double-strand RNA viruses as reported in a recent BMC Biology article by Taylor and Bruenn. The integrated virus-specific sequences are at least partially expressed and seem to evolve under pressure of purifying selection, indicating that these are functional genes. Together with similar reports on integrated copies of some animal RNA viruses, these results suggest that integration of DNA copies of non-reverse-transcribing RNA viruses might be much more common than previously thought. The integrated copies could contribute to acquired immunity to the respective viruses

DNA methylation on N6-adenine in mammalian embryonic stem cells

It has been widely accepted that 5-methylcytosine is the only form of DNA methylation in mammalian genomes. Here we identify N6-methyladenine as another form of DNA modification in mouse embryonic stem cells. Alkbh1 encodes a demethylase for N6-methyladenine. An increase of N6-methyladenine levels in Alkbh1-deficient cells leads to transcriptional silencing. N6-methyladenine deposition is inversely correlated with the evolutionary age of LINE-1 transposons; its deposition is strongly enriched at young (6 million years old) L1 elements. The deposition of N6-methyladenine correlates with epigenetic silencing of such LINE-1 transposons, together with their neighbouring enhancers and genes, thereby resisting the gene activation signals during embryonic stem cell differentiation. As young full-length LINE-1 transposons are strongly enriched on the X chromosome, genes located on the X chromosome are also silenced. Thus, N6-methyladenine developed a new role in epigenetic silencing in mammalian evolution distinct from its role in gene activation in other organisms. Our results demonstrate that N6-methyladenine constitutes a crucial component of the epigenetic regulation repertoire in mammalian genomes

The Microprocessor controls the activity of mammalian retrotransposons

More than half of the human genome is made of transposable elements whose ongoing mobilization is a driving force in genetic diversity; however, little is known about how the host regulates their activity. Here, we show that the Microprocessor (Drosha-DGCR8), which is required for microRNA biogenesis, also recognizes and binds RNAs derived from human long interspersed element 1 (LINE-1), Alu and SVA retrotransposons. Expression analyses demonstrate that cells lacking a functional Microprocessor accumulate LINE-1 mRNA and encoded proteins. Furthermore, we show that structured regions of the LINE-1 mRNA can be cleaved in vitro by Drosha. Additionally, we used a cell culture–based assay to show that the Microprocessor negatively regulates LINE-1 and Alu retrotransposition in vivo. Altogether, these data reveal a new role for the Microprocessor as a post-transcriptional repressor of mammalian retrotransposons and a defender of human genome integrity.S.R.H. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship and a Marie Curie CIG-Grant (PCIG10-GA-2011-303812). M.P. and E.E. were supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science (BIO2011-23920) and by the Sandra Ibarra Foundation (CSD2009-00080). M.P. is supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. J.L.G.-P. is supported by FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-IRG, CICE-FEDER-P09-CTS-4980, PeS-FEDER-PI-002, FIS-FEDER-PI11/01489 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (IECS-55007420). J.F.C. was supported by Core funding from the Medical Research Council and by the Wellcome Trust (grant 095518/B/11/Z)

The RNA Polymerase Dictates ORF1 Requirement and Timing of LINE and SINE Retrotransposition

Mobile elements comprise close to one half of the mass of the human genome. Only LINE-1 (L1), an autonomous non-Long Terminal Repeat (LTR) retrotransposon, and its non-autonomous partners—such as the retropseudogenes, SVA, and the SINE, Alu—are currently active human retroelements. Experimental evidence shows that Alu retrotransposition depends on L1 ORF2 protein, which has led to the presumption that LINEs and SINEs share the same basic insertional mechanism. Our data demonstrate clear differences in the time required to generate insertions between marked Alu and L1 elements. In our tissue culture system, the process of L1 insertion requires close to 48 hours. In contrast to the RNA pol II-driven L1, we find that pol III transcribed elements (Alu, the rodent SINE B2, and the 7SL, U6 and hY sequences) can generate inserts within 24 hours or less. Our analyses demonstrate that the observed retrotransposition timing does not dictate insertion rate and is independent of the type of reporter cassette utilized. The additional time requirement by L1 cannot be directly attributed to differences in transcription, transcript length, splicing processes, ORF2 protein production, or the ability of functional ORF2p to reach the nucleus. However, the insertion rate of a marked Alu transcript drastically drops when driven by an RNA pol II promoter (CMV) and the retrotransposition timing parallels that of L1. Furthermore, the “pol II Alu transcript” behaves like the processed pseudogenes in our retrotransposition assay, requiring supplementation with L1 ORF1p in addition to ORF2p. We postulate that the observed differences in retrotransposition kinetics of these elements are dictated by the type of RNA polymerase generating the transcript. We present a model that highlights the critical differences of LINE and SINE transcripts that likely define their retrotransposition timing

Defending the genome from the enemy within:mechanisms of retrotransposon suppression in the mouse germline

The viability of any species requires that the genome is kept stable as it is transmitted from generation to generation by the germ cells. One of the challenges to transgenerational genome stability is the potential mutagenic activity of transposable genetic elements, particularly retrotransposons. There are many different types of retrotransposon in mammalian genomes, and these target different points in germline development to amplify and integrate into new genomic locations. Germ cells, and their pluripotent developmental precursors, have evolved a variety of genome defence mechanisms that suppress retrotransposon activity and maintain genome stability across the generations. Here, we review recent advances in understanding how retrotransposon activity is suppressed in the mammalian germline, how genes involved in germline genome defence mechanisms are regulated, and the consequences of mutating these genome defence genes for the developing germline